Category Archives: forced compliance

Questions Which Can Have No Answer…Why benevolent government is impossible (Finale)

collectivist metaphysics, forced compliance, government, government violence, law, Man's Ability, Metaphysics, Uncategorized

To be honest, this series is getting more long-winded than I intended, and you pretty much get the idea at this point, so this article is going to be the conclusion to the series and then I will move on to other things…there’s lots of stuff in the brain-hopper that I’d like to get to.

Like I said, you get the idea: “benevolent government” is a giant contradiction in terms, and it therefore can’t work and will never work.

Exhibit A: the United States of America, arguable the freest and most enlightened nation in history is now, in under 250 years, a violent, corrupt, broke, lying, third-rate, pseudo-communist fantasyland; and this is not in spite of the Constitution, it is because of it…and I am genuinely sorry to have to say that. I struggle to accept it, myself, and don’t confess it gleefully. Nevertheless, the simple fact is this: of all the documents to attempt to reconcile the mutually exclusive ideas of freedom and government, the Constitution arguably does the best job, yet we must understand and remember that two plus two can never equal five, and therefore even that which comes closest to making two plus two equal five still has an infinite distance to go. In other words, that which comes the closest to making two plus two equal five is still just as far away as anything else is or was.

The Constitution affirms government, and that’s why it was doomed to failure (in reconciling freedom and government) even before the ink dried. The Constitution affirms government, and as such, even despite all of the best intentions of the Founding Fathers, it necessarily affirms tyranny. It’s a sad, hard, cold truth. We don’t want to hear it; we don’t want to accept it. I get it, and I understand. But the sooner we accept this truth and move on the better. Nothing good can come from persisting in folly.

As explained in previous installments of this series, the State is founded upon the metaphysical principle of human existential insufficiency. In other words, the very reason why we must have government (for example, dismantling the government is never the solution to any social, economic, political, etcetera, problem…in fact, more government is almost always in some way recommended) is because if left to himself, the individual will inexorably succumb to his depraved root nature. Without the State, it is asserted, anyone can “just do whatever they want”. This is a common argument…intellectually barren, of course, but common. Naturally we can’t have people running around doing whatever they want (Oh, the horror!) because “do whatever they want” always translates to: “give rise to the selfish, violent, murderous, rapacious, exploitative, profane, sexually deviant, criminal reprobates that form core of their very root being, and which is only restrained, like with animals, by punishment and pain, and the threat thereof”.

The “punishment and pain” is a consequence of “breaking the law”, which really means “disobeying the will of the ruling class”, because the ruling class, in all practical actuality, is the law. Without the ruling class the law is entirely irrelevant. The ruling class knows this, at least implicitly—and often, explicitly—which is precisely why they are never subject to the law to the same extent (or to any extent) as the masses.

Which brings me to this business of “no one being above the law in a free, representative, democracy”. This is complete nonsense, and I think, buried beneath the many layers of denial and cognitive dissonance, most of us know it. It sounds good, but it’s a lie. Someone has to be above the law simply because the law, itself, is entirely abstract…it’s a concept, not an object. Without an Authority to enforce law, law is meaningless, which means it’s irrelevant; which means it doesn’t really exist. The Authority is the meaning, relevance, and efficacy of the Law. Authority then cannot be under the Law because without authority, there is no Law. The Authority then can never be questioned, held to account, nor considered in any way illegal (i.e. unethical). The Authority cannot break the law because this means that the law can somehow break itself, which is obviously impossible:

Those of us who are under the law can offer no relevant nor meaningful complaint to the ruling class, because our ideas and opinions are a function of value judgment; and this is something our nature precludes. If we possessed any real ability to make value judgments to any truly (objective) ethical end, then we wouldn’t need Law and Authority in the first place.

Do you see?

The very existence of the Law and Authority is rooted in premise which says that man’s own ethical ability is corrupt and insufficient as a function of our very nature—the fact that were were born at all is why we cannot be in a position to question the Authority and the Law. For us to question, let alone criticize or condemn, the ruling class and its laws, implies that we are somehow able to make proper value judgments on our own. An ability we lack, because, again, if we could, we would not be under the Law and its Authority. Our only proper response to the ruling class is obedience, then….we obey, period, or we are disabled and/or destroyed, There is no discussion; no compromise; no vote…there is the ruler and the ruled, the philosopher kings and the unwashed masses, the gnostic enlightened and the barbarians, the Good and the Evil, the Master and the Slave. We can bring the best minds to the State, the most benevolent of politicians, the most well-meaning of souls…we can attempt to inject compromise and cooperation into this arrangement, we can try to make the square also simultaneously a circle, the cancer also simultaneously the cure, but there will only ever be one conclusion:

Totalitarianism.

And from this, death.

The premise will always find its conclusion. Always. If you want a different conclusion, you must find a new premise. If you want to avoid evil, despotic rule, you must reject entirely the concept of “ruling”. If you want a benevolent government, you must reject entirely the very concept of “government”. It’s truly all or nothing.

And no, government is not merely one way man chooses to organize himself socially and politically, and this is because government, as I have explained in previous installments of this series, is not cooperative. Government—that is, the sociopolitical dichotomy of Ruler and Ruled—implies that it is necessarily the only way that man can be organized; and this is because neither the ruling class nor those it rules over really have any choice at all. The metaphysics of the State demand that there is no such thing as “choice”—at least, none which is fundamentally relevant to human existence—because the ability of humanity, as a function of its very birth; very existence, to make any rational, objective value judgments is entirely insufficient, and thus moot. Man’s actions, which are rooted in his inability to actually and efficaciously apply ethics, and this as a function of his inability to make value judgments, and this rooted in his inability to actually know anything (i.e. to know Truth), and this rooted in his inability to actually be himself—that is, to be a rational and efficacious existential frame of reference—can only ever be fundamentally anti-existence. Left to his own “choice”—which of course and again is a lie, man will only ever act in service to the destruction of himself and others.

So, no, government is not a choice, either by the ruler or the ruled. Both the ruler and the ruled suffer from their existential insufficiency. This being the case, the ruled do not choose to rule but are “called” to rule by the Transcendent Divine, in whatever specific or non-specific way it is defined,, be it “God”, or “the Gods”, or “Mathematical Processes”, or “Evolution” or some unnamed Divine Determinist Agent or Agency (e.g. an “Unknown God”, Acts 17:23). They are the Philosopher Kings, put there because God or the gods simply declared it thus. They are as much a function of the Transcendent Divine as those who are ruled.

The ruled, of course, are not “called” to rule, but to be ruled. This is how it goes, end of story. It’s all about obedience and submission for the unwashed masses.

This is the way it is, period. There is no meaning, no explanation, no understanding, and no purpose beyond “it is because it is”. At the end of it all, that’s the whole explanation.

The fruit of the State is the Psychopathic Trinity: Chaos, Misery, Death.

END

Questions Which Can Have No Answer…:Why benevolent government is impossible (part three)

Authority, collectivist metaphysics, forced compliance, government, Uncategorized, , ,

Question two is thus:

How shall we rob them to protect their private property?

I know it’s a a bit cliche, but that doesn’t make it untrue:

Taxation is theft.

Most of us reject this assertion as merely the screed of crazy anarchists. It’s just them barking. Everyone knows that we must have taxes…even the most hardened libertarians, and certainly conservatives, have zero problem with taxation in principle. Heck, we are reminded that even Jesus didn’t outright condemn Caesar’s tax (however, he did not pay it out of his labor, but out of a fish…who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor?). If God doesn’t have a problem with taxation, then surely it must be reasonable, and more than that, entirely moral.

Well, I’m not convinced that God ever actually affirms taxation anymore than he ever actually affirms slavery, or war, or a host of other various state institutions in the Old and/or New Testaments, but that’s a different discussion.

At any rate, here is why taxation is theft…and it is the thing which is most downplayed by defenders and apologists:

When it coms to paying your taxes, you have no choice.

This alone is proof of theft. If someone claims a right to your property whether you want to give it to them or not, then this person is a thief, period. Give it any euphemistic title you want; couch it within the auspices of as many grand and ancient institutions as you like; puff it up with non sequiturs like “representation” and “constitutional rights” and “free elections” until the cows come home, it doesn’t change the fact that taking your property regardless of your will is theft.

*

Unfortunately, Volunteerism/Anarchism is simply a non-starter when it comes to the vast majority of political options. The fetishization of natural (metaphysical) human insufficiency has become, over millennia, a casual acceptance of some mystical yet axiomatic existential need of the masses to be enslaved and controlled by other, much smaller numbers of human beings. This means that government is axiomatic, even a-priori, to human existence; and this, of course, means taxation. In other words, the reason taxation is given a moral pass where other flavors of theft are not is because taxation is inexorably connected to the perceived basic existential need of man to be governed. That is, without the ruling class, humanity must necessarily go extinct, because the nature of man is such that he is fundamentally incapable of governing himself as an individual.

The very insufficient nature of man to execute and promote his own existence means that he must be governed—that is, coerced, fundamentally, by a governing Authority. How it is that man, being insufficient to his own existence, can decide which other existentially insufficient men shall rule over him…well, all such rulers are always in some sense “divinely” appointed, hence the completely mystical roots of all governments. At any rate, as far as the metaphysics go then, we must have some version of the State, and therefore we must have some version of taxation, because there must be some way for the state to acquire the funds with which to execute its duties, and therefore we are told that taxation simply cannot be theft because without the state to rule over men, men wouldn’t, or couldn’t, exist in the first place. However, the claim that the government is needed so that man can exist in the first place is really to claim the that the government must be man for man. Or rather more precisely put, the state doesn’t affirm man, it seeks to possess him and thus it nullifies him. Man must inevitably function as a direct and absolute extension of the state…and this ends up making the government-citizen relationship merely that of slave-master.

From these metaphysical roots of government we can see that though one may claim theft is immoral, the argument against this will take some form of: morality only exists in the first place because the government makes human life possible. The government cannot be acting against that which is, in short, a direct function of itself. In other words, your very life is a direct function of the state…without the state, you cannot exist. Ergo, the state is you, for you. Taxation cannot be theft because the state cannot steal from itself.

Sound crazy? It should, because it is…nevertheless these ideas are at the root of government, and therefore taxation. You are merely an extension of the state. The government utterly owns you, because your existence at root is in actuality its existence; and again, the government cannot steal from what it already owns. Alakazaam, poof! as my friend John Immel says, taxation is moral.

Now, you’d think that with all of the copious amounts of evidence of the object failure of governments—the wars, famines, exploitations, holocausts, slavery, mass murder, pervasive corruption—it would be a bit easier to convince people that this “logic” to which they have been subjected for thousands and thousands of years is a lie, but alas, it is near impossible. People are committed almost immovably to the idea that government is inexorability and inalienably tied to their own life in sum and substance. It is a hill they will die on…and millions, if not billions, have.

So, yes, because we simply must have the state, we must have taxation, so we believe.

Now, many times people are not without conceding to some extent that taxation is not particularly pleasant, nor convenient, and that taxes are too high and could and should be lower. They might even concede that the proclivity of taxation to rapidly become overbearing, inefficient, and outright wasteful might make it in some sense evil. However, they would prefer to call it a “necessary evil”.

Yeah, about that.

The difference,between too much tax and just the right about amount of tax…the difference between the morality of taxation and the immortality of taxation…the difference between the “necessary evil” of taxation and the actually evil evil of taxation is simply the irrational and meaningless question of “how much?” But this is not how morality works, of course. Morality is not a sliding scale. Something is either evil or it is not. Something is either up or down, left or right, this or that, yes or no…to make opposites a function of some sliding scale means that at the point along the continuum where they meet they become “both” and “neither”. In other words, where good and evil meet they contradict each other, which actually nullifies the entire scale. So, no, taxation, like anything else labeled as such, is not a “necessary evil”. It is either evil or it is good.

If it’s good, then so must any government commandeering of any or all your private property, because what you own, you own. You do not own some of your property and not own the rest of it…this is a contradiction. So if the state can claim a right to own any and all of what you earned, this of course means that there is no such thing as private property at all. The government owns everything, and thus the government owns you. If you do not own the product of your own labor then that which you use to do that labor, your body and your mind, is likewise by logical extension not your own. Again, the metaphysics of government mean that you don’t really exist. Which is why you have no property, not even yourself. The government owns everything; and it is thus the only thing that owns anything. Ironically this means that the government doesn’t actually tax anyone since there is no one else as far as it is concerned, and therefore there is no private property, but that’s by the by.

If taxation is evil then the state is not legitimate and thus, for all efficacious and practical purposes, it does not exist. The purpose of the state is to own everything and therefore to become everyone and everything. Which means that there can be no real distinction between that which the state is and that which it is not, in which case it cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be said to be anything at all.

Either way, taxation is an utterly irrational, impossible, futile ideal and institution. It can neither promote nor affirm the individual and can achieve no outcome except that of chaos and destruction. Taxation is a square circle…try as we might, no such thing can really be produced. The codification and institution of “legalized theft” is a meaningless endeavor which can never achieve anything except the obliteration of anyone or anything which attempts to implement it.

Taxation is a blank check the ruling class writes to itself. Taking a cursory look back at the history of mankind, does that seem like a recipe for success?

Still, there are many, many true believers out there, left, right, and center of the political continuum. Taxation can work, they insist,…we just need to find the right amount. If we can just answer the question of how much theft is “good” theft and how much is bad, then we could have an effective and moral tax system. How much theft is not really theft, and how much is actually theft…answering that is the key. The fact that such a stupid and illogical question can have no answer because it’s not a real question seems to be beside the pint.

Yes, this IS literally the question with which they wrestle, though they may not, or may not be able, to put it in so many words.

Let me ask: At what point do we decide that one owns his property but also does not own it?

This is a question that cannot be answered, because it is absurd. It is either your property or it is not, period. To put taxation on a sliding moral scale is nonsensical, because it is to claim that there is some point where your property can be considered also not your property., and thus subject to government commandeering, To put taxation in the category of “necessary evil”, is to claim that at some point taxation becomes theft where it wasn’t before. But how do you divide that baby, so to speak? At what point can your private property that you earned become to some degree or percentage that which you did not in fact earn…and further, who gets to decide?

You?

That’s funny, because if you could decide for yourself how much it should reasonably and morally cost for you to be controlled then you wouldn’t need to be controlled and thus there would be no need for government in the first place; and therefore you wouldn’t need taxing and thus the question is entirely moot.

Allow me to beat the dead horse of “necessary evil” a bit longer. As one who despises logical fallacy and therefore despises contradiction (I submit that all logical fallacies are simply contradictions at root) I feel I must exhaustively emphasize the logical failure of this aphorism.

I’ve heard, as I’m sure you have, “necessary evil” a million times to excuse all manner of moral atrocity, from war to taxation to public school, to government itself, and I am positively apoplectic at how such a nonsensical assertion passes for reason so often with so many people. It is an indication of how far humanity has lost itself to the lie that up can also be down, one can be zero, the square can be the circle.

Look, you simply cannot practically or meaningfully apply contradiction. That which is contradictory to reality is impossible. You cannot have a “necessary evil” because all this is is the assertion that what is evil is simultaneously what is good.

This is a lie. If it’s good, then by definition it’s not evil, and vice versa. If it’s necessary to a good end, then it is a good thing, not an evil thing. It cannot be both. Period. You cannot have a square circle, an up which is down, a black which is white, a yes which is no, a trinity which is a singularity (a three which is one)…and you cannot have a good which is evil…and do you know what else you cannot have? Cooperative theft, which is what we are claiming when we say that taxation is simply the necessary action of a benevolent state working for the good of the individual. Once the state decides that it has a right to your property, then it becomes a thief, period. If the government possesses the authority to take your property against your will, which is precisely what taxation is, then it is not a benevolent state simply cooperating with the people to achieve a free society, it is a rapacious ruling class expanding its own power and wealth at the expense of the masses.

*

A contradiction is the fundamental assertion, in its most basic form, that what IS also and simultaneously IS NOT. Whenever I mention contradiction as something like saying that up cannot be down, or left cannot be right, I know that someone is thinking ‘left can be right or up can be down depending on the frame of reference, so, yes, in fact left can also be right and up can also be down. A left turn to me will look like a right turn for someone looking from the opposite frame of reference.’

This is not what I’m talking about; this is not contradiction. What a contradiction is is the assertion that something IS and also IS NOT simultaneously. That is, from all conceptual (abstract), and/or observational frames of reference, at all times. In other words, it is the idea that you can observe, from your singular conscious frame of reference, at all times, that X is also Y; A is also B. Of course, no such thing is possible…if I gave you a thousand years you could not possibly, in picture or word, imagine such a thing. It is utterly impossible for you to imagine that something both is and is not, simultaneously, from the singular frame of reference of your mind’s eye.

Do you know why this is…why no one, anywhere, of any intelligence, can do such a thing? It is because contradiction is the antithesis of consciousness. The ability to conceptualize, simultaneously, IS and IS NOT contradicts conceptualization…which is the root of consciousness. The ability to conceptualize perception into language demands that concepts are not mutually exclusive. Rather, conceptual consistency is that which must necessarily flow from conceptualization. Conceptual consistency is how ideas are formed and successfully communicated. Should concepts contradict, ideas are utterly impossible. Without conceptual consistency, there can be no ideas, and thus no meaning and thus no truth. Which makes consciousness—the being aware of you and that which is around you, and thus the distinction between what is you and what is your environment, and conceptually what is you and what is NOT you, and thus how to manifest yourself within that environment by naming and valuing You and NOT You, such as “you” as opposed to your “environment”—fundamentally irrelevant. If consciousness exists, and conceptualization is real, then contradiction must be purely ideological at best. It’s never a real thing, so to speak..

In short, if contradiction is real then your consciousness is nullified, in which case, you simply wouldn’t exist to notice that contradiction is real.

I know this is all quite long-winded, but it is important that we tease these things out so that we can understand why something like “necessary evil” is not merely a cute little saying but rather a philosophical rationale which leads to all kinds of moral and practical horrors like the ability of the state to take money from its citizens by what is, at root, fraud and violence, and to at least implicitly, but often explicitly, claim that it has some divine, transcendent authority to do so—and this is because the state is a contradiction, and only by appealing to the “divine” can the cognitive dissonance pass for “truth”, even if the divine Ideal is simply “the People”, or “We the people”.

*

Taxation is the state taking your property from you without your consent. That’s what it is; and taking your property without your consent is theft.

“But, Argo”, you might protest. “I don’t mind the government taxing me. I am happy to do my part and pay my taxes…since I willingly pay, it cannot be theft, right?”

If you don’t mind, then you are right, it is not theft…but it’s also not taxation. It’s cooperation. Cooperation and government are by definition mutually exclusive. People who cooperate are not governed. Cooperation is exclusive of force, and therefore exclusive of authority, and therefore exclusive of government, and therefore exclusive of taxation. To attempt to square the circle by claiming that taxation is not theft because you don’t mind, or even enjoy, paying your taxes doesn’t really work. Because it’s not up to you anyway. That is, your statement that you don’t mind being taxed is a complete non-sequitur. The state doesn’t care whether you mind or not…that’s the point. Because to the state, what is the difference? Whether you care or not, what you want or not, what you think or don’t think about taxation is completely irrelevant. They are going to take your property. The thief doesn’t spend any amount of time giving a shit whether or not you care if they take your stuff, and neither, ultimately, does the state. The ruling class may sedate you with the bromide of “representative government’ or “free elections” or “constitutional rights”, but this isn’t because they care what you think, it’s all about making it easier for themselves. Sorry if that sounds so awfully cynical…it’s not actually cynicism, it’s realism. Because it doesn’t matter how kind or noble or altruistic or benevolent any given politician might be, the fundamental nature of the state is utterly antagonistic to individual life, liberty, and property. It is entirely metaphysical. No politician thus has any choice in the matter…that is, ultimately they shall treat you like a slave to be exploited…a means to their own end. The government can only, by its very root nature, work in service its own limitless self-expansion and insatiable appetite for power at the expense of everything and everyone else, period. No master, no matter how benevolent and kind, can truly cooperate with his slaves, because that is simply not the nature of the institution.

On that note, let’s talk about “free elections” for a moment, as often you will hear people say something like, “we can always change the system (including taxation) by voting for different people.”

To say that in a benevolent governmental system you “freely elect” the your leaders is, again, the smuggling of contradiction into the argument. You cannot freely elect one who is to be in authority over you, in the same way a slave cannot freely elect his master…and even if he could, he’d still be a slave. The idea that having a different master makes you less of a slave is laughably ridiculous.

This relates to taxation this way…that is, the minarchist argument is something like: if we only have to pay X amount of tax if we elect authority A, then taxation is fine. We will pay only a small amount, covering just the basic government functions.

LOL…as if you get to decide what your authority’s functions are. As if the slave dictates terms to his master. Moreover, this is like stating that if a thief only takes your lawn mower but not your car then he is not really a thief. I submit that the thief who realizes he can take your lawnmower without any repercussions will soon realize that he can also take your car…and where will you draw the line? By what logic? You own both of them, but to say that to take the lawn mower against your will is fine but not the car is is to split the idea of “ownership”. You own the car, but the lawnmower you only sort of own….you own it but you don’t. X is also Y. IS is also IS NOT. Nonsense.

The truth is that you either own both or you own neither. If the thief can take one by some “rationale” that he has concocted in his little criminal mind then he can also take the other, and he will.

If you say you don’t mind if the thief takes the lawn mower and/or the car, and you strike some kind of accord with him, well then, he’s not actually a thief. He’s not taking anything by force…you are volunteering to give it to him…you are cooperating. He is no longer presuming some ineffable, inexplicable, mystical, divine “right” to take your mower whether you like it or not. He doesn’t pretend to be in some kind ot authority . This is voluntary value exchange, not some kind of fantastical admixture of theft and cooperation.

We play these games with taxation. We say we don’t mind, but if we don’t mind then its not taxation. There need to be no tax laws. It’s just good old fashioned cooepration. The very fact that there are tax laws and that if you don’t pay your taxes you get punished should be all the evidence you need to see that there is nothing moral nor rational about taxation. It’s theft. Period. Full stop. Cliche or not.

The benevolent government steals from us in order to protect, promote, perpetuate, and preserve our right to private property.

How’s that been working out for us?

END

Questions Which Can Have No Answer…:Why benevolent government is impossible (part two)

forced compliance, government, individualism vs collectivism, law, morality, Uncategorized, ,

Explaining how the inherent contradictions of the questions I listed in part one relate specifically to government is the purpose of the remainder of the posts in this series. Today’s post will examine question one.

1. How shall we enslave them to set them free?

A wise man with whom I used to regularly associate, John Immel, once said that government is authority and authority is force—his point being that coercion is not merely a characteristic of the State, but is in fact the state’s most fundamental characteristic, and likely the only truly relevant one. Absent force there is literally nothing about the State which has any meaning whatsoever. I agree with this completely, and the only thing I would add to John’s aphorism concerns the Law. I might put it this way: The Law is government, and government is authority, and authority is force. Meaning that once Law is declared or implied as the guiding societal principle then government is established to compel obedience…because law absent forced compliance is not law, but suggestion. Government is the physical incarnation of the Law’s right, or Authority, to compel obedience. No citizen gets decide for himself whether he shall obey or not, for if this were the case then the law would, again, not actually be law, but suggestion.

This goes to the heart of why I have for the last several years assiduously asserted that legality is a fundamentally distinct ethic than that of morality, and that, in fact, the two are mutually exclusive. To build a society rooted in the ethic of legality—that men’s behaviors shall be bound and constrained by law—is to ensure that that society is not and never shall be a moral one.

Morality is an ethic that necessitates that men must will and choose; legality is an ethic which declares that choice and will are fundamentally irrelevant…men will do what the law demands or they will be disabled or destroyed. Period. Legality deals in punishment; morality in consequence…and the difference between them is not in the least bit subtle. Consequence is earned; punishment is meted out. You cannot earn a punishment; you cannot be dictated a consequence. The law cannot acknowledge that you earned your punishment precisely because it does not acknowledge the legitimacy of your will and choice. You will obey or else; what you want, what you will, and thus to what end you shall exercise your choice, is utterly meaningless to the law. The law dictates your behavior, and you will act. You have no choice in the matter. Law is not cooperative. “Cooperative law” is a contradiction in terms. You don’t earn. You act, or you are in some sense or literally erased from society. You act as the law demands or you don’t exist. There is nothing for you to earn. The law IS, you act. That’s all. There is no “consequence”, nothing is earned; nothing is given to you or happens to you because you don’t have any real individual autonomy under law.

The law says how you must or must not behave, period. Further, any behaviors not specified by the law are still obliged to it, for the entire context of all behavior is framed by the law. If the law can demand your compliance in one behavior, it can demand it in all of your behaviors. At the root of all your relevant actions is your volitional Self, and this Self is utterly singular. Thus, to claim to own just one of your behaviors is a claim to the ownership of all of YOU, entirely. The law implies that at any point it may demand any behavior from you, full stop. The law is the basis for the authority over the race of men by those who are called, elected, installed, etc. to enforce it.

Let’s look at the following example:

Person A attempts to rob person B; person B shoots person A as person be B defends his property.

Now, both Morality and Legality will value the act of robbery and the act of self defense according to a given standard, and the standard is simply that which the action can be said to ultimately serve. This is where the two ethical systems diverge, never to be reconciled—where their utter incompatibility is illustrated. With morality, the standard is the individual, and thus is likewise that which must be preserved in order that the individual may have actual, rational, objective, meaningful existence. In other words, the moral standard is that which must be preserved in order for the very existence of the individual to be possible on both the physical and metaphysical levels. The moral standard then is Self, and, by extension, that by which the Self is made manifest in reality: life (being alive in the world), liberty (being consciously and willfully active in the world), and property (the means by which being alive and being active can efficaciously occur). In short, the individual is the moral standard, which necessarily makes choice an integral component of ethics, as choice and will are ineluctably integral to the individual. We can therefore value the action of defending one’s property as being a moral action because it is in service to the individual; and the consequence of being shot in the attempt to rob another person as being a moral consequence.

Legality offers us a different interpretation of the scenario entirely. The Law, as I have explained, rejects choice and will as having any ethical meaning whatsoever. The law is about obedience, and obedience is by definition the rejection of choice. “Choose to obey” is a contradiction in terms, as one cannot choose to have no choice. One can choose to cooperate, but not choose to obey. Slaves obey, free men cooperate. And no sane person would ever equate slavery and choice, because “freedom” and “slavery” are opposites. To say one is the other is, to put it mildly, complete nonsense.

So what is the ethical standard according to legality? Well, the ethical, or legal. standard is not the law, precisely, it is fundamentally the Collective Ideal, incarnate via the government (Ruling Class) and which forms the metaphysical basis for legal ethics, but for any truly meaningful purposes we can presume that the Law itself is the standard. We really don’t need to get bogged down in metaphysics to make the point here.

What is the point, then, you ask?

The point is that the action of defending one’s property and the action of getting shot whilst attempted to rob that person of their property are going to be valued according to the degree to which they are in compliance with the Law. The law is the legal standard. If this seems circular, or redundant, well, that’s because it is. The law is, I submit, a wholly irrational ethic…untenable because it’s at root perfectly senseless.

At any rate the law is the legal standard, meaning that if the law says that one must not rob, then the act of robbery shall be unethical…”illegal” is to legal ethics as “immoral” is to moral ethics. Similarly if the law says that one may, or must, shoot someone trying to rob them then the act of shooting the robber shall be deemed ethical. The act of getting shot whilst trying to rob another is thus likewise deemed ethical.

Notice that I did not make getting shot a consequence of the attempted robbery…there is the act of shooting and the act of getting shot. Legally speaking, there is no such thing as consequence. No two actions are necessarily ethically connected in this regard. There is no action-reaction, or choice-consequence, only action-action. There is no necessary ethical value which can be logically drawn from any given behavior to any reciprocal behavior.

Let me try to clarify this point.

The law may declare it unethical (illegal) to rob someone, and likewise declare that one may not defend his property. The law may declare that the act of defending private property (there is no such thing under law, by the way, but that’s besides the point) is the sole purview of the State, for example…the police we could say, and that while it is illegal to rob it is also illegal to defend one’s property. There is no contradiction here…the law demands what you shall do in service to the law, and if the law decides that it is in service to the law for you to both not be robbed and also to not defend your property then that’s what shall be demanded of you. The law defines the context for your behavior and thus your existence, and whatever it declares you must do you will do. If those things seem contradictory or incongruent to you…well, what is that to the law? The law doesn’t care what you want, it doesn’t give you a choice, and thus it doesn’t care what you think. It rejects your consciousness as having any legitimacy at all, so what things seem to you with respect to the law is utterly beside the point.

On the other hand, morality is not like this at all. In morality, it not only is possible but necessary that there be ethical value shared in actions which are reciprocal to other actions. Morality accepts as axiomatic cause and effect, choice and consequence, action and reaction, and this is because morality implies will and choice as necessary to human existence, and thus it understands that there are natural outcomes of behavior which are driven by choice, and that those outcomes are thus necessarily tied in value to one’s behavior. If it is considered to be of value that a man shall own property then it must, morally speaking, be of value that man shall defend his property from theft, which means that if a man must shoot the robber in order to defend his property then getting shot is a moral consequence of attempting robbery.

Now, I certainly understand the moral question of whether or not one should use deadly force in the prevention of the theft of some inexpensive thing, like a pencil or marble, for example…but that actually furthers to illustrate my point. The reason we can have ethical conversations like this is because of morality; such questions are not a remonstrance of it. It is because morality fundamentally values the individual that we can ask questions about things like whether it is a good thing or not to shoot a person who is trying to steal a pencil. With the law, the answers to such questions are simply dictated to you and I. If the law declares that yes, you must shoot, or are allowed to shoot, one who is attempting to rob you of your pencil, then that’s settled. The law says it, you obey. It’s not for you to ask questions…and don’t think. It’s not for you to think.

What has all of this to do with the question, “How shall we enslave them to set them free”?

Well, it may not be entirely intuitive, but it’s not complicated to see the error implicit in the idea of the “benevolent State” as it applies to the rule of law…and I submit that law is implicit, if not explicit, in a slave-mater relationship. The master declares what behavior the slave must perform…this is the law for the slave. The slave obeys. It’s no more complicated than that…the only real difference is that in the state-citizen relationship, with our “free” and “democratic”, and “representative” government, with the smokescreens of “elections” and “constitutional rights”—the U.S. Constitution being the prototypical blueprint for the “benevolent state”—there are many masters and many millions of slaves.

Within the “benevolent state”, like every other state, there are rulers and there are the ruled, and this authority-submission dynamic is the very essence of the most basic forms of slavery. The benevolent state is nothing more, unfortunately, than a master who demands compliance from his chattel. The relationship is rooted in law…behavior is dictated, and obedience, not choice, is the only value the citizen brings to his government.

I understand that this is not a popular idea anywhere, not even in politically conservative or even libertarian circles, which stop short of declaring the state entirely bereft of morality and legitimacy. My perspective that it is entirely bereft of morality and legitimacy is said to be naive, oversimplified, myopic, purely ideological. I wish that were true…honestly I do. Unfortunately, a cursory look around the turgid nation where I reside, the U.S.A., reveals the objective reality, which is this: that what was once arguably the free-est nation on earth, the rights of the individual codified in its most fundamental of governing documents and heavily informed by individual-empowering enlightenment philosophy, has dissolved into nothing more than a pseudo-tyrannical, bloated, perpetually indebted, foolhardy, war-mongering peddler and exporter of neo-Marxist racist dogma which has decided that the apogee of virtue and virtue’s only meaningful objective is “social justice”, and that “social justice” is nothing more than at best doing to innocent white people the very same thing which was done to innocent black and brown people, which is about as lazy and stupid and hypocritical as is possible, and is literally less effective at creating a just society than doing absolutely nothing at all. Yet here we are. We fought a revolution over stamps and tea, but 30 trillion in debt, exploding inflation, World War Three, disintegrated borders, state-compelled “vaccinations” with experimental drugs, perpetually subsidized unemployment, government-sanctioned riots, and abortion rates of up to 70% in certain communities…well, hey, nothing one more election can’t fix. Give Trump four more we’ll be positively drunk on freedom.

The idea of the benevolent state and the rule of law is the idea that no one is above the law. Sounds good. We all cooperate together under law for freedom’s sake. No slave; no master. The government is a mere steward of that law which is established to enfranchise men to act out their natural rights. Law protects and promotes freedom…without it we are at the mercy of the whims of evil men.

Sounds good. However, it’s all just platitude. The hard, gun-shaped truth is that law is nothing without an authority to enforce it. That authority is the government, and the government which must enforce the law in order that the law can have any relevance and meaning whatsoever cannot simultaneously be obligated to that law. It is simply a contradiction and cannot work…which is precisely why it doesn’t. The reason the United States has dissolved into a black hole of corruption, greed, cognitive dissonance, and totalitarian fantasy is because of the fundamental philosophical premises which underwrite it, not because we simply don’t have the ‘“right people” in power. “If the slaves just had a different master they’d no longer be slaves” is a ridiculous claim, yet we continue to think that if we just elect the right men and women to political office we can turn the ship around and return to the halcyon days of beautiful individual freedom. No we cannot, because freedom does not and cannot proceed from the foundational documents which inform this nation. At root these documents speak to only two truly relevant things, and only one if we consider them mutually inclusive of one another: A government shall be established, and there shall be law. This demands, inevitably, that no matter how benevolent the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the nation will inevitably find its way to totalitarianism and collapse, just as we have seen time and time again in virtually all nations and all governments throughout history in all the world.

You cannot and will not free men by enslaving them…and government means slavery. Period. Benevolent or not. Benevolent government may be a benevolent master, which is preferable to a hateful master, surely, but a benevolent master is still a master, nonetheless; and you are still a slave; and just you wait and see how long your master remains benevolent once you decide that you no longer want to be a slave.

END

Your Place as a Disciple in the Universal Authority-Submission Cult, from Church to State, from Then to Now, and Everything in Between

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, forced compliance, Metaphysics,

1. Your nature:

You possess an endemic and immutable moral guilt. Your root sin is that you exist at all. Your Original Sin is that you were born. Whatever Universal Guilt is said to mar your soul and make you infinitely unacceptable to whatever is considered the Transcendent Divine/Most High is something which is at the irreducible root of your very metaphysical nature.

2. Your absolution and obligation:

You shall receive conditional forgiveness and salvation at random or regular intervals through the performance of routines and rituals, as well as your perpetual submission the Authority “called” to steward you, that is the Ruling Class, the Priests.

Government is the Dragon: Why government is fundamentally redundant

Authority, collectivism, forced compliance, government, government violence, tyranny, ,

The State is an expression of Satan, and by this I mean that it is an institutionalized lie, a father of lies, and by “lie” I mean contradiction. I mean an idea which, if one attempts to apply it, leads only to chaos, misery, and the death of Self. The State is anti-life, anti-human, and even anti-itself. The State is a contradiction, and contradictions are nothing, and they produce nothing. They are holes in reality.

Government is an institution built upon the metaphysical lie that human existence can only be perpetuated by force—that is, by violence—violence against the very nature of man himself—the Consciousness, the Will, Awareness of One’s Self, Volitional Application of Knowledge, and knowledge rooted in reason, reason being the non-contradictory integration of concepts to organize realty into meaningful truths in order to promote both the existence of One’s Self and that of Others to whom and with whom truths are communicated and expressed. Without the Self and Other, communication is impossible, and thus language, and thus concepts, and thus consciousness, itself, is meaningless. And because government is built upon a metaphysical lie—that man’s nature is insufficient to his own existence, and therefore he must be controlled by an Authority outside of his own rational and moral natural faculties—it can produce only lies about those it governs. And this it does with great prodigiousness. However, Government’s greatest lie of all is the one it tells about itself, to itself: that it serves a purpose, and that it is not an abject redundancy.

Government is always built upon a Collective Ideal, and that Ideal is Absolute. It is the Nation, the Tribe, the Race, the People, the Church, the Kingdom, the Worker’s Utopia, Diversity, Equality, Tolerance, the Common Good, etc….and this Ideal, being wholly abstract, is limitless. It cannot be contained within reality, and yet it must rule over reality; it must subordinate reality to itself; it must make reality a direct function of its own infinite essence. Thus, when it makes a claim to its explicit right to rule over man, and by extension man’s environment, it is making the implicit claim that it shall rule the whole of reality, and in fact, the whole of Existence. But by “rule over” we do not mean merely control…it is something much deeper and more fundamental than that. We mean consumption. We mean that it shall consume Existence. It shall become Existence…there shall be no functional distinction between Existence and the Ideal. All is the Ideal.

Government consumes everything around it, based upon the assumption and assertion, both expressed implicitly and explicitly in various iterations, that it alone has a right to exist. All else, then, is to be made into Itself. And thus here we can see that even the very name “Government’ is a lie. It does not govern…for if everything is Itself, then what is there for it to govern? There is to be no distinction between man and State, nor Environment and State (for Government cannot truly govern unless it governs the places where man exists), nor Reality and State (Government cannot truly govern unless it governs the relationship between man and man’s environment), nor Existence and State (Government cannot truly govern unless it governs the nature of how and why all things ARE).

Government, by its very nature and very expressed purpose, obliterates all distinctions between Itself and all else. Government is the incarnation of the Absolute, Infinite, Collective Ideal, which can have no limit, no boundary…that is the nature of an abstract. Like color, or diversity, or altruism, or natural law…these things are conceptual tools that man uses to organize his environment…they are not themselves distinct aspects of that environment. Thus, taken as they are, in there own essence, they are infinite…without boundaries or corners or limits, in the unfettered spaces of the human consciousness. Once the relationship is reversed, we can know of the inevitable chaos and unavoidable annihilation which must follow. Once man becomes a tool of the abstract, instead of the other way around, death must inevitably follow. To make an Abstract the reality into which man and all else must fit is to destroy the distinction. All becomes Abstract, and thus, all becomes nothing. And this is precisely what Government is, and does. Government is the establishment of an Abstract (Race, Nation, Diversity, Equality, Common Good, etc.) as that to which all else must be subordinated. The Abstract RULES OVER…but the Abstract, being infinite, has no frame of reference for anything other than itself. So to RULE OVER is to obliterate the distinction between that which rules and that which is ruled over. From the very start then, Government is rationally defunct…pointless, redundant, meaningless, contradictory. The very idea of Government cannot be accommodated at root by reason, and thus it cannot comport with man and the environment over which it is to rule. Government is stillborn. DOA. it is an institutionalized non-sequitur.

Finally, because Government is all-consuming, Government must necessarily consume even itself. Once it has reached its unavoidable conclusion, which is the categorical control of everyone and everything (assuming it hasn’t collapsed before this…yet, it will collapse, of this you can be sure), Government has nothing left to govern. In other words, when all has been absorbed Into itself, and all has become an expression of itself, there is nothing over which to exercise its Authority except itself. It will then begin to swallow itself…feeding on its own body to sustain its own existence.

And so in this sense, we can see that the State is indeed the Dragon; it is Satan in institutionalized form. The father of lies, where the liar lies principally to himself, and murders himself by fundamentally rejecting the truth about his own infinite pointlessness. Government is the Dragon, and Its name is Ouroboros.

END

Post Script—

To grant you freedom by placing you under Authority; to protect your life by refusing to allow you to live it; to provide for your existence by delegitimizing it; promoting peace amongst you while waging war against you…this is government; this is the State. As it is, was, and ever shall be. An institutionalized contradiction; a granting of all power to a bottomless pit, with no possible outcome except the pit, itself. It is nothing which intends to be everything.

The government cannot help you, and never could; the government hates you, and always did; the government fails, and always will; the government lies to you, because truth is not in its nature; the Government is a contradiction, and contradictions are holes in reality.

 

Masks for Chaos; Masks for Control: YOU are the real virus

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, forced compliance, government, government violence, individualism vs collectivism, Metaphysics, tyranny, Violence, Voluntarism, , ,

If you are diagnosed with coronavirus, you are ordered to isolate; you must stay home and avoid contact with the public. Even if you wear a mask you are not permitted to occupy or traverse a public space. And the reason why you’re not permitted to break your quarantine, even if you’re wearing a mask, is because it’s understood both by the state and their medical advisors that masks do not prevent the transmission of coronavirus (or other microbial respiratory infections for that matter, which is why we’ve never been mass-ordered to wear them in public until now, where certain sociopolitical and economic conditions have altered the state’s approach to public health.)

If masks do not halt the transmission of coronavirus, and this is evidenced by the government demanding that those who have tested positive for the virus be isolated, and cannot breach their quarantine even if wearing a mask, then what is the point of mask laws?

Well, there is of course no medical answer to that question. The answer is purely political.

Some may argue that while masks do not halt the spread of the coronavirus, they reduce it, and this is why mask-wearing is compulsory. But there are a couple of critical problems with this. The first, and I believe simplest, is that if we know that masks do not prevent the transmission of coronavirus, then we simply cannot say that any reduction in coronavirus cases is due to mask-wearing. Again, masks are NOT preventative…this we know. Therefore mask-wearing can never reduce the virus transmission rate to zero. Even if we say that masks are a reductive measure, we know that because they cannot reduce to zero, “reduce” becomes an entirely meaningless concept—infinitely relative. Masks do not prevent the spread of coronavirus, therefore it will spread in spite of mask-wearing laws. Infection rates will continue to increase as a trend, even if people wear masks. Even if the infection rates were to slow, it could never be known with any degree of certainty that this is due to mask-wearing. It would be impossible to rule out all other factors and determine that the decrease in infection rates is because of masks. All we can know for certain is that masks do not prevent the spread of coronavirus. Thus, we cannot make any logical inferences from mask-wearing other than what is ALREADY known, which is, again, that masks do not prevent the spread of coronavirus. And this is why all those boxes of masks you are now seeing piled up  in stores all over the country come with disclaimers on them which read something to the effect of “THIS IS NOT A MEDICAL DEVICE”. Even the mask-making companies know that masks do not prevent the transmission of coronavirus. This should tell you everything you need to know.

Another problem is this: Because the coronavirus by its nature continually spreads (at least until it runs its course through a population and then self-limits, as viruses tend to do, or there is a vaccine), and there is no known cure or objectively preventative measure, then there is always at any given moment an unknown number of coronavirus cases circulating in public. Therefore, even if you introduce a reductive measure, like a mask-wearing law, you can never know to what degree that measure is effective in reducing cases of the coronavirus. You cannot calculate a percentage from a reference number which is unknown. What is 20% of an unknown quantity? 10%? 60%?

Exactly.

My point here is that the laws passed by the state in order to ostensibly mitigate the threat of the coronavirus are based on utterly subjective and un-verifiable assumptions. We are unable to know whether or not any of these laws actually have any relevant effect of any kind, let alone a statistically significant one. We do know that measures like mass lockdowns and the inconsistent and random decisions on what constitutes an “essential business” which may remain open to the public have a degenerative effect on the economy and on social cohesion, and we do know how destructive and lethal this is to people. But the state doesn’t care about that. Because here is the reality: In any crisis, the first and foremost problem as far as the government is concerned is always the people. Always remember that.

At any rate, the fundamental coercive nature of the state makes it impossible for it to ever manage a health crisis like SARS-CoV-2, because it precludes the possibly of gathering any objective data which might be useful in combating it. The state, you see, above all, wants to control…it doesn’t seek to understand, to research, to analyze, to think. It wants to control; it wants to consume. That is its only real purpose. Control and consume the individual Self…incorporate the individual  into the Collective Ideal, whatever that may be (e.g. The People, the Nation, the Race, the Church, the Class, the Culture, etc.). The state is not wisdom, it is not truth, it is not life, it is not health, it is not help, it is not science. It is force, and force is violence. Period.

And here is where we get to the truth of what is happening with respect to the coronavirus—a truth is so inexorable that it defies the intentions of even the most benevolent members of government.

What we assume is that the state wants to destroy the virus and preserve the individual. But this is a lie. The state wants to use the coronavirus, like it uses everything else, to eliminate the individual, who represents the only real and relevant threat to government, The individual exists as a thinking, self-actualizing, self-aware, self-volitional agent whose nature as such challenges the state’s presumption of its own Absolute Authority. The self-aware individual has a nature which precludes a natural willingness or even fundamental ability to be controlled and to have truth dictated to him, and this is an unforgivable offense to the state, whose only existential purpose is to do just that: control and dictate. And this is why government measures to manage the virus are seemingly contradictory, chaotic, and irrational. The state’s actions are completely irrational and meaningless with respect to science and medicine, but they ARE COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with its true and ineluctable objective of exercising absolute authority over the individual; to consume him, control him and thereby destroy him.

*

Only men and women who are free to exercise their fundamental and existential core of self-agency, reason, awareness, and volition can ever engage in actions which will truly eliminate threats to their lives and property, because only by this can a truly objective outcome of such actions be achieved: the preservation of humanity as it invariably and necessarily manifests according to its fundamental nature, which is the conscious, volitional Self. Once the individual is redefined by the state as an abject, existential threat to state power, and humanity’s root nature as a thinking, conscious, self-aware, volitional agent is cast as an aberration and as anathema to reality, not an expression of it, then the resolution of all national crises will necessarily involve the increased restriction and subjugation of individual freedom. For the state, the root of all evil is what it considers the great Lie of the Individual, and this is the audacity of human beings to consider their own singular conscious minds and wills as somehow rational, natural, and entitled to some kind of existential consideration, much less promotion and affirmation. You see, all crises, like pandemics for instance, which are not state artifice, are to the state a reflection of the root evil of the individual. Thus, to control and consume the individual is the solution to EVERY problem, be it a pandemic, or foreign hostility, or domestic rebellion, or natural disaster, or whatever, which is why government responses to these crises always involve an expansion of government power over its citizen. The answer is never more freedom, but AlWAYS less, even when more freedom, such as in the case of the coronavirus, would encourage measures that could actually work FOR the individual, not against him, and thus real scientific data could be collected and efficaciously utilized. In a truly free (that is, a stateless) society, we would not attempt to protect people whilst simultaneously reject the very thing that makes them people in the first place—their conscious Selves; their minds, their wills. Only an institution of pure contradiction  and violence, like the state, does this.

So what do the masks represent?

Fundamentally, they are reminder that you are owned. They are an expression of state power; they are another example of the government’s natural instinct to wage war against its citizens—against the individual; against the Self. The implementation of irrelevant and contradictory legal demands is how the state continues to foment the ethos of the mainstream mass acceptance of absolute Authority. The state does not mitigate or prevent crisis—that is neither its purpose nor its nature. It creates crisis, or exploits it, in order to undermine individual human existence by delegitimizing and marginalizing will and thought and reason, all things which affirm and validate human consciousness, and replaces these things with itself. The governing of human beings is, specifically, the subordination of their individual wills and minds, their very natural SELVES, to the external Authority of the state, which is established as the practical and materially efficacious incarnation of the Collective Ideal, whatever that may be—the labels are endless, but they all mean the same thing in the end: totalitarian chaos and the death of man, leading, ironically, to the utter collapse of the state, itself, until the cycle starts all over again

The state exists to become humanity for it; to own it; to subsume it, and consume it, and this is done though the systematic and persistent creation of chaos, the normalization of crisis, the fomenting of a public mindset of abject fear and mistrust, the initiation of utterly irrational and unrealistic legal obligations and threats, and the dissemination of contradictory ideas (e.g. wear a mask to protect others from the coronavirus; it is not safe to breach isolation even with a mask, because a mask will not prevent the spread of coronavirus). These things are intended to demolish humanity’s ability to rationally interpret and thus manage realty in general, and any given environment. This precludes the individual’s successful and productive association, negotiation, and cooperation with his fellow man. The state exploits the chaos for the sake of its own power. It creates crisis, promotes chaos, wages war against its citizens and the rest of the world (to whatever extent it is able) in order to slake its lust for control and wealth and hedonistic whim, all the while telling itself and the rest of humanity that it is doing a broad, benevolent service for mankind, which, if left ungoverned, uncontrolled, and un-coerced, could never exist on its own merits, because it is existentially insufficient. The consciousness is a charlatan; the will ineluctably foolish and barbaric and self-serving, the truth and morality infinitely elusive to the human character. In short, the state assumes that humanity’s metaphysical nature is utterly useless to existence, and then invents or manipulates scenarios to “prove” its assumption.

The state is an intractable psychopath and an insatiable vampire, and it is in charge of protecting your health.

Good luck with that.

END

Mortality Rate or Tyranny Rate?: Why all the Covid-19 numbers numbers favor state power

Authority, forced compliance, government, government violence, tyranny, Violence, , ,

Have you ever wondered why, despite the incredibly low case fatality rate, the relatively low incidence rate, the overwhelming percentage of at-risk individuals being comprised of strictly the elderly, and more still, elderly with comorbidities; the prestigious list of scientists who have questioned the efficacy and wisdom of government lockdown measures, or outright condemned them as completely disproportionate relative to the danger (Michael Levitt, John Ioannidis, Knut Wittkowski, Johan Giesecke, Sunetra Gupta, just to name a handful), the scarcity of evidence regarding the efficacy of face masks and social distancing as preventative measures in public settings, the inconsistency with which mortality and incidence rates manifest around the world, the inconsistency with which public health measures are enforced, or that the enforcement seems lightest towards groups who are seen as expeditious to the greater consolidation and expansion of government power …yes, have you every wondered why, despite all of this, that the screws of state control seem to tighten ever more, with no hope of loosening for the foreseeable future?

Well, the answer is simple: All of those statistics, and all of the voices of all of those demurring and suspicious scientists, despite what may be intuitive to us, must and do necessarily affirm, not deny, the blatant increases we are seeing in the practical manifestation of the state’s insatiable totalitarian ambitions.

Let’s take a moment to think about something fundamental. That is, what are we fundamentally admitting when we cry foul at draconian government intrusion upon the rights of life, liberty, association, and property in response to a virus that only has a 1-2% mortality rate, and poses no statistically significant risk to anyone under 21, and only a very minor risk to those between the ages of 21 – 65? What are we conceding when we declare that face masks do not actually work in preventing the spread of coronavirus and more than likely pose a substantial health risk for long term users due to cumulative oxygen deprivation, and the persistent taxing of the body’s cardiopulmonary functions?

Go ahead and take a moment to think about it. I’m sure you will get it, if you haven’t already…

Got it?

Of course you do.

What we are conceding, when we discuss the implied relationship between the numbers and the state’s response, is that the government has the fundamental right to use its coercive violent power to compel individual behavior in order to manage an individual’s risk. We are admitting that the individual does not have a natural right to decide for him or herself what risk to take or not take, or what levels of risk they have deemed acceptable for themselves in service to their own lives, but that, to some degree, inexorably, immutabely, everyone must and shall be managed by state force.

We are conceding that we, the people, do not have full autonomy of our own existence, but that there is a part of our own lives that shall be ever off limits to us, and severed from our wills and our wishes and our minds; that a part of us belongs entirely to the state, to be pushed prodded and threatened and dictated to, irrespective of whatever we feel or desire. We imply that if only the coronavirus were a bit more deadly, then coercive government violence in the form of public health decrees would be acceptable, righteous, and necessary. The only reason we have a problem with what the state is doing is because the numbers are too low. In other words, we concede that the degree to which we should be free to exercise our liberty as individuals, with respect to the coronavirus, and by extension anything else, is nothing more than an academic discussion of “how much?”. How much risk is acceptable? How much liberty should we have in this circumstance or that?

The problem is that the answer to the question “how much?” can and will only ever be provided by the state. And that means totalitarianism.

The individual is a Self; the individual is singular…an “I”, a “Me”. Existentially, you are One. there are no degrees of Self; no percentage of “I”. To claim that you can outsource a part of YOU, of your YOU-NESS, to an authority who shall somehow exist as that part of you for you is folly.

What degree of health risk constitutes the transition between tyranny and liberty? Two percent? Five? 20? 50? At what point do we get to say “Whoa, hold on a minute, that number is too small, you have no authority here”?

The point at which the government must step in and take over—to live our lives for us—is a point that the individual, you and me, cannot see from our existential frame of reference. Our frame of reference is Self…is singular. Self, or “I”, is what we know from and think from and do from, and from our categorical vantage point it is absolute; it is complete; it is whole. We cannot thus claim or concede that there is part of us that is beyond our capacity to know or act from—we would have no frame of reference for this; we would have no way of knowing the amount or percentage of such a thing, or the implications of our inability to manage it, and thus to what extent it should be compelled from outside of us by an external authority.

My point is that as soon as we concede, either explicitly or implicitly, that the state may claim ownership over a part of ourselves we have conceded that the state may claim ownership over all of ourselves.

Discussing or quibbling over numbers is a non sequitur, and even worse a distraction from the real question, which is, “Does the state have a right to manage risk?” That’s the real debate. We should not demand freedom based upon the spurious and irrelevant referencing of scientists and statistics and percentages and spreadsheets and computer models. We should reject asinine, contemptible, childish, and oppressive government demands not because the virus is only one percent dangerous, but because we one hundred percent refuse to become slaves.

END

 

There will be No More Elections Because there is no More Need of Them: American capitulation ended the Republic in 2020

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, forced compliance, government, government violence, Metaphysics, tyranny, Violence, ,

I’ve spent a couple of days trying to figure just how to approach this article. I’ll admit, it’s been difficult, and fair warning, I will try to be hopeful here, but this isn’t my strong suit (as I’m sure you’ve noticed if you’ve spent any time reading here). In my own defense, though, history hasn’t provided much evidence in support of hope. Nations collapse, empires implode…this is the way of things. It is the inevitable conclusion of the philosophical premises upon which nations and empires and all governments are built. The manner in which these things happen may be different, this is superficial…the window dressing is of a different color and style, perhaps, but it’s still the same window. Still, the future doesn’t exist yet, by definition, so maybe if enough people push back in whatever ways present themselves moment by moment the worst of the tyranny can be thwarted. But…probably not.

While I’m on the way to the grocery store the other day I see a man in a convertible wearing a face mask. So, yeah…make of that what you will.

The good news is that the guy in the convertible won’t be voting in the next presidential election. The bad news is that neither will you or I. Well, I wasn’t going to anyway because I gave up voting almost ten years ago now…because I can’t get around the rank contradiction of voting for those who will rule me.

But let’s talk about that for a moment. The election I mean, because I think the sooner we  admit to ourselves the truth none of us wish to admit, the sooner we can begin to think about how we will manage things going forward.

As I have mentioned in many previous articles, western representative democracies have relied upon a facade and artifice of “freedom”, and “liberty” and “bill of rights” and “equal representation” and “private property” and “all men are created equal”, and other such bromide which is fed to the masses to goad compliance to the ruling class. Marx once said that “religion is the opium of the masses”…at least I think it was Marx. Maybe it was Neitzsche? At any rate, I completely agree with that statement…but only if by “religion” we mean “liberal democracy” because THAT is a religion which so completely and soundly satisfies the aphorism as to render its application to any other religion somehow shallow and incomplete. Anyway, the ruling class in the West has for a couple of centuries governed in such a way that the tax cattle (the middle class, I mean…the ruling class is to a large extent financed and intellectually defended by the wealthy/monied m class, to the point where the line between them today is blurred almost completely beyond distinction)… the ruling class has in the past governed in such a way that the tax cattle affirm and promote their own oppression and servitude because they believe they are free and not because they know they are NOT, and, somewhat paradoxically, fear punishment for disobedience. Both of these methodologies are effective in compelling slavery to the ruling class, and truly the deception of liberal democracy, where citizens vote for politicians who generally serve only for a set number of years, and who give themselves the massively ironic title of “public servant”, is much more profitable, stable, efficient, and effective than rank tyranny. This is easy to understand, for if one becomes a slave willingly because he thinks slavery is freedom, then the ruling class can focus its energies on consolidating wealth and power and influence and meting out death and destruction with the aid of a good night’s sleep. You see, when the slaves are unaware of their situation, their masters don’t need to spend money on fences and towers and guns and guards. They can pretend that everyone is equal, and that we are all friends, and that any distinction between ruler and ruled is academic at best.

However, as a nation evolves this illusory egalitarian mask begins to crumble…and this perhaps even in spite of the best attempts of the ruling class and their financiers in the wealth and monied classes to prevent it. This has to do with the inexorable evolution of the root ideas. You see, everything boils down to the metaphysics—what is fundamentally believed about the nature of reality will necessary define what is true and what is good and how truth and goodness should be disseminated amongst humanity. And from this we get practical application of the fundamental philosophical ideas. They become manifest…empirical. They are worked out, as it were, and evolve to an inevitable conclusion. It would be too much of a distraction from the main point here to discuss this in detail, and I have done so in other articles on this blog, Suffice to say that all governments are rooted in collective metaphysics, and there is simply no getting around this, and the conclusion of collectivist metaphysics is tyrannical politics, and the conclusion of tyranny is inevitable obsolescence—once the tyrannical authority has destroyed or otherwise neutralized all those over which it has authority, it is no longer an authority, and thus it begins to feed on itself…it becomes an Ouroboros, you could say, and thus becomes what it always intrinsically was: nothingness born from fundamental self-contradiction. So even though the facade of a liberal democracy which pays very convincing lip service to individual rights and liberty is much more effective and efficient when it comes to providing the ruling class with degrees of power and wealth only imagined in outright autocracies, outright autocracy IS the destiny of the liberal democracy.

Here’s why: The ruling class wants to stay the ruling class. After a while, things like term limits and free elections and representation and all that folderol become a distraction, then, as government grows inevitably more and more mendacious, an outright obstacle. Liberal democracy becomes an obstacle to what the ruling class explicitly or implicitly knows is the entire point of the existence of the State, and via State the existence of the ruling class: to rule. .The ruling class then begins to lay down for itself a substrata of unelected power, and this unelected power grows and grows to the point where it can no longer be effectively shielded from public view, and no longer wishes to be. It no longer wishes to pretend it does not exist. It knows the metaphysics, and it knows that according to the metaphysics it alone has the right to dictate truth and to determine the moral virtue of anyone and everyone.

And here we are.

The United States is officially no longer. It is done. Over. 244 years it lasted, and this is completely typical for the life span of an empire. In fact, it’s a little on the short side. An empire, based on historical numbers, lasts an average of ten generations, or 250 years, regardless of the form of government. So the nation which boasts the most enlightened and egalitarian and libertarian version of governance has lasted for a shorter duration than the average. We are not special. We are not freer. We are a nation, and that nation is ruled, and nations that are ruled rise and fall the same way, all the time, every time. Because the metaphysics never change. And never will. At all. Period.

The coronavirus killed the United States, and United Kingdom, and pretty much every other western liberal democracy. The government, almost LITERALLY overnight, abolished Constitutional law, and with it, the rights the Constitution bestows upon the citizens…rights which must be honored if the United States can be considered the United States. Movement, association, private property, commerce, free speech, privacy, education, unbiased application of the law…all abolished in the name of public health.

How ironic.

And in response to this, what did Americans do?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

American dutifully complied, and still comply to this day in the vast majority of cases, with unconstitutional decrees issued not by vote, or consensus, or compromise, or due consideration, but capricious, monolithic, politically expeditious governors’ executive orders which are based on no objective medical data, no validated research, no thought to the severe long term consequences or collateral damage. The State sent its propaganda machine into overdrive, cooking numbers, manipulating data, ignoring contrary expert opinions, condemning citizens who dared demand the right to manage their own risk, and calling people racists when all else failed to shut them up. The usual filthy tactics. Weeks went by, then months, then more months…the lockdown persisted and persisted, even after it was discovered that the virus has mortality rate at best that of the flu, and probably lower. But no pushback was forthcoming. Oh, sure, a few protests popped up here and there, but they were quickly condemned by the propaganda juggernaut of the globalist media, and the participants were threatened with jail and other forms of state violence if they did not comply with social distancing and mask-wearing protocols. Then a black man died whilst in custody of police in Minneapolis, and all hell broke lose. Predictably, the lower class rage mobs of welfare/single motherhood psychological dysfunction, along with communist paramilitary agitators like “Antifa” took to the streets and vomited out their perfunctory moral atrocity upon the land—arson, looting, theft, murder—the usual barbarian fare. The tax cattle put on their masks and social distanced. The police were told to stand down as private property was destroyed and pillaged and some of the tax cattle were shot and beat to death and smashed to pieces. In response the tax cattle put on their masks and social distanced. Then the rage mobs vandalized and burned and  threw down monuments and statues and other testaments to the nation’s history and identity, and once again the police were told to stand down, and they did, and the State let it happen. And the tax cattle put on their masks and social distanced. An entire six-block area of Seattle, Washington was seized by the rage mobs and their communist benefactors, who declared it a distinct and separate geopolitical entity from the United States, and commandeered the property and lives of the citizens who lived and worked there, then proceeded to engage in predictable communist behavior—beating, killing, stealing, vandalizing, terrorizing, destroying, littering, making all things ugly, and excelling at incompetence and filth in general. The police abandoned their station therein and the governor told law enforcement to stand down.

The tax cattle put on their masks and social distanced.

Back to elections.

Taking all of this into account, can we really expect the ruling class to allow anymore “free” elections? And even if by some unlikely chance they do, that they will honor the outcomes, assuming they do not interfere with those outcomes, or that they will represent anything meaningful? Elections exist to placate the tax cattle…to maintain the illusion of freedom, because this illusion is seen as a necessary pillar of their power and wealth. But this illusion is clearly no longer necessary. The tax cattle aren’t stirring, they aren’t threatening anything…they are following the herd to the feed troughs and charnel houses and milking-stables in lines, socially distancing six-feet apart and wearing masks. Cities burn and monuments crumble and the Constitution lines litter boxes and American shrug. When the signal is red, we stop. When it is yellow we use caution. And when it’s green we go, but only after seeking a reassuring nod from our overlords in the respective capital cities.

I have two words for you: Joe Biden. He is all you need to know about how seriously the ruling class is taking the next presidential election. A demented old man nearing 80 who can’t string together a coherent sentence and can’t remember anything socially relevant that happened after 1972 and has a rap sheet of corruption that reaches to Neptune and has a reputation of being gropey and gross and who couldn’t beat Trump in a debate if Trump were reading off the funny pages. No one on the left is excited about Biden, no democrat has even a thimble-full of political faith in him, and the ruling class in general, with the election a mere four months away and a chance to oust their most hated president in US history, is almost entirely ignoring the election and instead is devoted to carpet bombing Americans with the endless demagoguery and fear-mongering of an essentially harmless and irrelevant virus.

Those of you who anxiously anticipate the reelection of President Trump as some sort of stop-gap or even remedy to the impending tyranny, my understanding and sympathies are with you. However, I do feel that reality is always the best approach, so I am compelled to inform you that you should anticipate Trump’s reelection no longer. Because there will be no election. Our rulers no longer have to pretend that they serve. Now they are free to simply rule.

END

 

Socialist Soup in the United States: Masks, the Mob, and the Cops (Part FOUR)

Authority, collectivism, collectivist metaphysics, forced compliance, government, government violence, law, tyranny, Violence, , , , ,

Now, about the police, and the calls to defund them by communist organizations like “Antifa” and “Black Lives Matter”, along with a substantial number of ruling class elites and politicians. America is not Cuba, or China, or North Korea, or East Germany in the 1950s and 1960s. Unlike these overtly totalitarian regimes, whose ruling classes openly employ the police as rank puppets of their autocratic ideologies, and where the police essentially comprise the sum and substance of the judicial system on the whole, where knee-smashing and head-bashing thugs are given badges and uniforms and are tasked with being judge, jury, and executioner all in one…unlike these places, the ruling class of the West, and the United States in particular, have much more of a reluctant relationship with the police. In a “perfect” totalitarian state, which again as I have mentioned previously in this series, is the logical conclusion of all governments, including western democracies, despite totalitarianism being less profitable and less efficient, the police serve the whims and pleasures of the ruling class at all times, without exception, and with pure, undiluted violence, to compel the categorical rank servitude of the masses in both thought and deed. But here in the West, and again the United States in particular, the police serve as an unwitting part of the facade of “constitutional freedom”, and the feint and artifice of liberal democracy. This is because in the West, “liberal democracy” is the ostensible context in which the ruling class operates and exists…it is why the ruling class is the ruling class. Thus, it is the illusion which the ruling class must maintain in order to continue to enjoy the power they possess. Now, again, understand that this does not mean that liberal democracy is maintained in perpetuity in the West…the whole point of this article series is to articulate an example of the evolution of liberal democracy into rank authoritarianism, and the natural tendency of the ruling class to resort to overt tyranny in place of any other form of governance. The natural progression of the philosophical premises which underwrite and inform government ALWAYS lead to an overtly totalitarian conclusion. It is unavoidable. Here I am simply pointing out the irony that is particular to western democracy: that in the interest of preserving it, and thus preserving their political power, the ruling class will reject liberal democracy in favor of the more messy and less efficient, less profitable totalitarian version of governance. This is why politicians in the U.S. will, for example, speak of preserving Constitutional liberties and the right of all Americans to be treated fairly whilst simultaneously ordering the police to stand down and allow enormous sections of dozens of cities to be burned to the ground by rioting mobs of rank communists, and, by the ruling class’s brazen inaction, facilitate the destruction of public and private monuments and statues throughout the nation, which is a direct assault on the identity of the very country they claim to publicly serve.

At any rate, as important members of the political farce called “liberal democracy”, the police in the West must be seen (in most circumstances, anyway) to uphold said democracy, and in the United States, this means upholding the constitution, and this means serving and protecting the rights of the citizen against constitutional violations, even if those violations are perpetrated by the ruling class.  And this means that many police officers identify with the more conservative end of the political spectrum, and thus do not easily acquiesce to being pawns of the ruling class In its quest for greater and more direct control of the masses. The police for the most part are obedient and they are ideological, which is expected from those who have given their lives in service to the State. But because they see themselves as important players in the preservation of the Constitution, and the liberties that that document ostensibly implies, the police pushback against the totalitarian decrees issued by the ruling class more often than the ruling class would like. A good example is the refusal of many police and sheriffs departments in the U.S. to enforce the ridiculous, pointless, and clearly unconstitutional “public health” edicts handed down by governors with respect to the coronavirus pandemic, where governors acted independently of any state congressional approval, or even congressional involvement at all, let alone taxpayer consent. This kind of pushback from law enforcement makes the police ultimately unreliable when it comes to exercising the kind of direct violent control of the masses the ruling class must rely upon more and more as the liberal democracy over which it presides continues its inexorable slide towards the sewer of totalitarianism.

All of this being the case, we can see now why, for a while, anyway, the ruling class must outsource its tyrannical wishes to the lower, dependent-class rage mobs of almost perfect and perfectly pure psychosocial dysfunction. Yet, as I have explained, this arrangement with the mob—the informal soldier of the state rampaging through his own neighborhood destroying whatever and whomever he can find, giving no real thought to the distinction between friend or foe, possessing no objective which is truly comprehensible to himself, and, in addition to destroying his environment, destroying himself—this arrangement is not ideal. The ruling class understands that this approach is brazen, indelicate, off-putting, inefficient, and expensive, and their complicity becomes harder and harder to hide. To instead formalize this mob…to make it official business of the State to terrorize and traumatize the tax cattle into submission by giving the mob badges and uniforms and service weapons  and pensions and a formal, albeit rudimentary and simplistic, ideology upon which to smash and murder and rob and torture—this is a better, more ecological strategy, as far as the purposes is of the ruling class is concerned. By exerting formal, direct control over the mob by institutionalizing it and calling it the police, the ruling class is better able to mitigate their uncertainties with respect to their power going forward. The police, unlike simple rioters, can be more incisive, exact, nuanced, more psychologically threatening, surreptitious, subliminal, and controllable; more loyal, less expensive, less ostentatious, less messy.

Replacing the mob with the cops, however, is a challenge. It’s not a simple task because whilst doing so the ruling class must continue to maintain the illusion of a free and representative western liberal democracy. This is hard to do when the very suggestion of replacing the police can be understood even to the most intellectually somnolent citizen (which is most of them) as a rejection—to at least some degree—of the current judicial system. Thus, in order to make more palatable the idea of replacing law-enforcement defenders of the Constitution with hired thugs who will wipe their jackboots on the document, the ruling class engages its propaganda machine to demonize, demoralize, and morally condemn the police as being guilty of the very things they wish to bring about by replacing them. It’s a pretty effective form of psychological warfare, if not a particularly imaginative one. Simple reverse psychology, but it works. The police are scapegoated and defamed as racist, hateful, trigger-happy, violence-loving, mindless barbarians who indiscriminately accost and attack and murder members of the victim class through sheer murderous pleasure—the “victim class” meaning, in the United States, blacks, and occasionally other “minority” groups, when convenient; the reason blacks are so often portrayed as the victim, however, is that they are so easily provoked to outrage and violence, and this because the ruling class has hooked the black community on the drug of welfare more than any other group by far—and all of these fabricated police atrocities and dark psychological characteristics of course are the very things which shall become ubiquitous in law enforcement and completely legalized once the ruling class is able to manipulate law-enforcement directly, without having to pay lip-service or deference (however superficial it already is) to pesky inconveniences like Constitutional rights.

END

Socialist Soup in the United States: Masks, the Mob, and the Cops (Part THREE)

Authority, forced compliance, government, government violence, tyranny, Violence, , , ,

After several months of compliance, the citizens are beginning to reject the lockdown. There are lawsuits, there have been protests, masks are not being worn in public and businesses are not enforcing mask or social distancing laws; some counties have defied governors’ mandates and have moved ahead with easing the lockdown without executive approval. People are beginning to recognize the rank incompetence of the State in handling this pandemic, and they are casting more and more of a suspicious eye upon the data being provided to them by government health agencies and disseminated by the transnational propaganda machine otherwise known as the mainstream media. In short, Americans are rejecting the ruling class’s capricious and bumbling management of their lives with respect to this pandemic.

And here cue the mob.

The ruling class has always employed enforcers…those whose job it is to remind the sheep and cattle just who is in charge. A boot to the crotch, a pipe to the knee, a club to the back of the head, a brick to  the window, a flame to the store…in more official arrangements of totalitarianism you’ll see, in addition to the aforementioned, random arrests, random convictions, long and violent interrogations looking for no real specific information…that kind of thing. Here in the United States the ruling class has no official nor officially sanctioned enforcers, obviously, because this would necessarily undermine the facade of liberal democracy, which undermines their wealth and power; and let’s not forget that the artifice of liberal democracy has  been the mechanism for the greatest non-voluntary wealth transfer in the history of the world. So here, in the U.S., we don’t get the Blue Caps or the Santebal or the  Stasi, we get the mob.

After all, the ruling class in the West cannot simply send in official and officially uniformed, formally sanctioned death squads to capture, torture, and murder the disobedient human tax cattle, by which we mean the middle class, in order to “coax” them back into line. The cattle should not be spooked by such optics. They must be kept docile, and their docility is to a large part ensured by the belief that their government actually cares about them, and respects their individual identity and autonomy. This is of course so obviously false that one wonders why the ruling class bothers attempting to hide the truth at all, and yet in spite of  clear, if not officially acknowledged, disdain for those over whom they rule, the vast majority of Americans continue to believe that their government is, at root, completely benevolent and meritorious, and that it is the perversion of the Constitution which is to blame for their misery, and not the logical consequences of the philosophical principles upon which the Constitution is established that has brought us to where we are today.

Anyway, in response to the flouting of lockdown orders and mask laws, the unofficial State enforcers are called up for active duty. Triggered by unofficial State-sponsored propaganda, like, for example, “random” videos of “random” white police brutality against “random” and “innocent” black people, the mob is sent in to terrorize urban areas, which of course lay just at the gates of the tranquil bourgeois neighborhoods of the suburbs, and in some cases, the mob is even leaked to a small degree into the suburbs, in the form of “protestors”, who are not necessarily violent, yet violence is the message which is being conveyed, if only implicitly. Obey or else, is the message they bring, as they point to the destruction raging just beyond the pristine middle class streets.

The mob is of course comprised of the unofficial enforcement shock troops of the ruling class, and by this I mean the government-subsidized lower classes. The State-sponsored and State-financed brigades of manufactured dependents, whose indolence and irresponsibility and social dysfunction and open rejection of beauty and nobility and integrity and art and intelligence and reason and tradition and social contract and morality is subsidized and thus encouraged by trillions of dollars of public assistance money, paid for by the middle class tax cattle. The ruling class raises up legions of undereducated, angry, unsupervised, bored, hopeless, thoughtless, self-aggrandizing, narcissistic and psychopathic, sexually immature soldiers, raised in violent, dangerous, fatherless, mentor-less, dysfunctional, and supremely traumatic environments and unleashes them upon the city to do what they do best—destroy themselves and everything around them. Thus, the unspoken and implied message to the middle class from the ruling class is sent: You need us. Without us, your political overlords, look at what you shall reap. We are what separates you from the barbarian hordes; we are WHY they are at your gates and not at your front doors. You will continue to obey. You will continue to accept your role as political scapegoat and as tax cattle. We will cut you up for meat and leather and milk and veal, and you will accept all blame and moral condemnation that is rightly applied to us; you will absorb the ire and invective coming from the communist, indolent, entitled academic idiots and their idiotic pupils for social ills that we have wrought and in return we will keep the mob behind the class wall.

END part THREE